Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.

--------------To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.

Most IDists take a very conservative approach to inferring design. Not only would the evidence indicate design but it would include indicators that a non-design conclusion is implausible.

Most IDist say "Design!!!!" because their little holy book tells them so.

--------------To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Before writing this off, something like that has already been developed - the patent is jointly held by Monsanto and the USDA - it's called "Terminator Technology." It wasn't deployed because it makes plants sterile and transgenes are highly promiscuous. Just a little tweaking could have such a gene-packet targeted to human sterility, and it could be put into the whole world's staple food crops. Humanity could be sterile in less than 5 years. …

I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.

Edited by Lou FCD on May 05 2008,12:51

--------------The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it is said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output. Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output. Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.

As she [Lynn Margulis] said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.

Oh, so the anti-evolutionists do have a use - they're a measuring stick of the importance of new hypotheses.

Quote

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.

Well, the problem with that is that "doing science" would mean actually paying attention to the evidence, which they and we both know would lead right back to the very theory that they're trying to get rid of. Can't have that, ya know!

Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

Quote

The point of the reference was not Berlinksi. I referred to him out of respect for source material. The point is always what is said. I take every commenter at TT seriously. A HS dropout has the capacity for rational thought and may come out with a gem. Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.

No 'signs of insecurity' here, nope, nuh-uh.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.

I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.

Incidentally, I think I just figured out why you were photographed at Macarthur BART. The apartment I lived at in north Oakland for 10 years is halfway between that BART station and the NCSE office. (Tho I don't think it was there when I lived there -- I left in '95.)

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.

I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.

That's funny, El Cerrito is where I moved in '95 (and still am now). Where in El Cerrito was it?

The best restaurants near the NCSE now would be the Eritrean and Korean restaurants along Telegraph, or maybe the Chinese places on Piedmont Avenue. There's nothing on 40th itself.

40th between MLK and Broadway is a ratty neighborhood. The best I can say for it is that it hasn't gotten any *worse* since 1985.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Where do you see yourself in ten years? Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers? Posting rabbit pictures? Jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design? When are you going to be the author of one of those scientific articles? Will you buckle down and get your hands dirty, as Allen mentioned? Or do plan to keep blogging from the sidelines?

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful. I am just curious what you hope to accomplish?

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output. Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.

Jeez.... A paper I published when I was still in grad school has been cited 65 times....

Now that sounds like a potential chapter for volume 2. The significance of scoring is not simply coming up with numbers, but in laying out one’s reasoning – thus, the need for a chapter. Yet simply think of proteins from the four perspectives of analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight.

Mike Gene it ain't. The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy. She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers. Check it out.

I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...

Quote

Allen_MacNeill: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.

Mike Gene it ain't. The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy. She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers. Check it out.

It's fascinating. Someone who has declared herself to be of Irish ancestry is basically claiming that the ADL's definition of 'holocaust denier' is wrong, and that the ADL is mistaken in *not* blaming Big Science for the Holocaust.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

MacNeill's last point there is the most interesting thing about the ID movement. Even if ID was correct, which it isn't, the behavior of the ID advocates wouldn't lead to success. Scientific revolutions succeed when the revolutionaries use the new ideas to solve old problems and advance research. The ID community isn't even trying to do this. Their journal sits there, defunct, while they make movies, gripe on the internet, write 'textbooks', and fly around collecting honoraria. (Enjoying Brazil, Paul?) And while some at the top know better, the footsoldiers of ID know so little about science that they don't see the glaring absence of research. Anyone who knows anything about science and how it changes can look at PCID for about 15 seconds and understand that ID is a con game.